Watching the world of east London politics

Archive for April 10th, 2013

I first wrote about the Coalition’s irritation with East End Life in October 2011, when I wrote:

I think the Government is a touch fed up with East End Life and Tower Hamlets Council’s defiant little attitude to how it spends our money – and I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see all these town hall publications brought under some form of new statutory footing that properly governs how often they can publish.

And so it has come to pass.

On the day Margaret Thatcher died on Monday, Eric Pickles signalled the end for East End Life (hat tip to David Boothroyd). Eric Pickles has launched a four week consultation aimed at putting town hall publications on a statutory footing.

The proposals would give the Government the power to make directions to councils they believe are abusing their duty to communicate with residents via overtly political publications. They would do this upon evidence that councils were not complying with the Publicity Code for local government…and it would be enforced, if necessary, by court order.

Here’s the announcement from Eric Pickles, who, surprise, surprise, has singled out dear old Tower Hamlets for special mention:

Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles proposes a toughening up of rules governing local authority publicity.

The Secretary of State today (8 April 2013) announced his intention to legislate council publicity rules in order to preserve a strong, vibrant and independent local press.

Although required to comply with the ‘Code of recommended practice on local authority publicity’, brought in by this government, Mr Pickles is seriously concerned about a rogue number of local authorities who continue to flout the rules and abuse taxpayers’ money by publishing “political propaganda”.

In the broadcast media, regulator Ofcom recently concluded that the London Borough of Tower Hamlets had breached ‘The Communications Act 2003’, the ‘UK Code of Broadcast Advertising’ and the ‘Code on local authority publicity’. However there are no such restrictions which stop political advertising in print.

The consultation, launched today, is seeking views on how best to frame the new legislation to stop politically contentious advertising campaigns, municipal newspapers and the hiring of lobbyists by councils.

Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles said:

“Some councils are undermining the free press and wasting taxpayers’ money which should be spent carefully on the front line services that make a real difference to quality of life. It should not, under any circumstances, be used to fund political propaganda and town hall Pravdas and yet a hardcore minority of councils continue to ignore the rules despite public concern.

“The line in the sand is clear, publicity material straying into propaganda clearly crosses that line, and this legislation will stop this disgraceful misuse of public money, which damages local democracy and threatens an independent, free and vibrant local press.”

This is a victory for local Tory leader Peter Golds who has been begging Whitehall to intervene for years.

But for ease of use, here they are (points 9 to 14 are the most interesting):

Introduction

1. The government is consulting on proposals to protect the independent press fromunfair competition by introducing legislation providing the Secretary of State withpowers to make directions requiring one or more local authorities to comply withsome or all of the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity’s(the “Publicity Code’s”) recommendations.

The Publicity Code

2. Section 4 of the Local Government Act 1986 provides that the Secretary of Statemay issue codes of recommended practice on local authority publicity. That sectionalso provides that local authorities must have regard to any such code that isapplicable to them when taking decisions on publicity.

3. On 31 March 2011 the Secretary of State issued a new Publicity Code, a copy ofwhich is at the Annex to this paper. This Code replaced earlier Publicity Codes thatwere applicable to local authorities in England. It was issued after both Houses ofParliament had approved a draft of the new Code, this draft being preparedfollowing a public consultation initiated in September 2010, and reflectingrecommendations of the Communities and Local Government Select Committee’sInquiry into the Publicity Code undertaken during the first Session of thisParliament.

4. The new Publicity Code applies to all local authorities in England specified insection 6 of the 1986 Act, and to other authorities in England which have that provision applied to them by other legislation. These local and other authoritiesinclude county and district councils in England, London Borough councils, parish and town councils, national parks authorities, the Broads Authority, and theManchester Combined Authority.

5. The origin of this new Publicity Code is the Coalition Agreement, ‘Our Programmefor Government’, commitment for the government to “impose tougher rules to stopunfair competition by local authority newspapers” and the general electionmanifestoes of both Coalition parties. Such unfair competition, funded by the localtaxpayer, can prove damaging to the continued sustainability of local, independent,commercial newspapers that are an important element of effective local democracy.

6. The new Publicity Code therefore, includes specific guidance about the frequency,content and appearance of local authority newspapers, including recommendingthat principal local authorities limit the publication of any newspaper to once aquarter and parish and town councils limit their news letters etc. to once a month.

The new Code also represented a major reshaping of the earlier Codes, for claritygrouping the guidance under 7 principles. These principles are that local authoritypublicity should be lawful, cost effective, objective, even-handed, appropriate, haveregard to equality and diversity, and be issued with care during periods ofheightened sensitivity.

7. Underpinning this new Publicity Code is the recognition both that good, effectivepublicity aimed at improving public awareness of a council’s activities is entirelyacceptable, and that publicity is a sensitive matter because of the impact it can haveand the costs associated with it. It equally reflects the government’s view that localauthorities should focus their resources on frontline services, reducing resourcesexpended on publicity such as newspapers, and above all that it is whollyinappropriate for taxpayers’ money to be used to pay for material that could beperceived as political or competing with the independent press and media.

What we are proposing and why

8. Where local authorities comply with the recommendations of the Publicity Code,local taxpayers can be confident that any of their money spent by their council onpublicity is being used appropriately; and local independent newspapers – importantcontributors to sustaining a vibrant local democracy – will not be at risk throughunfair, taxpayer funded, competition. Whilst the majority of local authorities complyfully with the Publicity Code’s recommendations, it is a matter of concern to thegovernment that there are still cases where this is not so – for example, continuingcases where there are weekly publications of council newspapers, or concernsabout the political character of a council’s publicity. Local taxpayers and electorsshould be able to be confident that the statutory framework for local governmentprovides an effective safeguard against any council using taxpayers’ moneyinappropriately or acting in a manner potentially damaging to others – theindependent press – who have important roles in a democratic society.

Proposals for giving greater force to the Publicity Code

9. Accordingly, in the Structural Reform Plan for the Department for Communities andLocal Government the Government has included a commitment to give greaterforce to the Publicity Code by putting compliance on a statutory basis. The Planindicates the intention to introduce legislation providing the Secretary of State with apower to make a direction requiring compliance with some or all of the PublicityCode’s recommendations to protect local commercial newspapers from unfaircompetition from municipal publications. To fulfil this commitment and intention, thegovernment is proposing, at the next convenient legislative opportunity, to legislateas described below.

10. This legislation would provide the Secretary of State with powers to make directionsrequiring one or more local authorities to comply with one, some, or all of thePublicity Code’s recommendations. It is proposed that a direction could apply to asingle named authority, to a number of named authorities, to all authorities in aparticular class, or to all authorities to which the Publicity Code applies. In thiscontext the reference to authorities includes both local authorities and those otherauthorities to which the Publicity Code applies.

11. It is proposed that the Secretary of State would be able to issue any such directionwhenever he considers it appropriate to do so. The Secretary of State may, forexample, consider it appropriate to direct a particular council to comply with somespecific recommendation of the Publicity Code because from the informationavailable to him he considers the authority is not, or there is a risk that it might not,comply with that recommendation, compliance which the Secretary of Stateconsiders important. Equally, the Secretary of State may for example issue adirection requiring all or a class of authorities to comply with one or morerecommendations, compliance with which the Secretary of State considers to beparticularly important.

12. It is envisaged that prior to issuing a direction, the Secretary of State would berequired to give notice to the authority or authorities in question of his intention toissue a direction to them. This would give the authorities an opportunity to take anyaction they considered necessary to prepare for such a direction, or to makerepresentations to the Secretary of State as to why in their opinion a directionshould not be issued. In the case of a direction to all or a class of authorities, thenotification could be given to such representatives of the authorities concerned asthe Secretary of State considers appropriate.

13. A direction would be given in writing to the authority or authorities in question. Thedirection may, but need not, specify the time for compliance and / or the steps thatthe Secretary of State considers necessary for the authority or authorities to take inorder to secure compliance with the Publicity Code recommendations concerned. Adirection could be withdrawn by the Secretary of State. Where a direction applied toa category of authorities, the Secretary of State would take such steps as heconsidered necessary to bring it to the attention of the authorities concerned.

14. Once a direction had been issued, enforcement of any continued failure by anauthority to comply with the recommendations concerned would be through any interested party obtaining a court order.

Questions

• Views on the proposed legislation are invited, and in particular doconsultees see the proposals as fully delivering the commitment to givegreater force to the Publicity Code by putting compliance on a statutorybasis?

• If there is alternative to the power of direction, how will this meet theaim of improved enforcement of the code?

• This consultation invites evidence of the circumstances where the codewas not met and the implications of this on competition in local media.

Who we are consulting

15. We are consulting the Local Government Association and the National Associationof Local Councils. This document is also available on the Department forCommunities and Local Government web site at https://www.gov.uk/dclgand wewill be drawing it to the attention of all principal councils in England, the NewspaperSociety and local newspapers. It is open to all to make representations on theproposals, which will be carefully considered.

16. Responses to this consultation must be received by 6 May 2013. A response formis attached at the end of this consultation document and is saved separately on theDCLG web site.

You can respond by e mail to:

mark.coram@communities.gsi.gov.uk

When responding, please ensure you use the words “Publicity Code consultation2013” in the e mail subject line

Share this: Facebook & Twitter

Like this:

I asked Lutfur for his views on Labour’s selection of John Biggs for Tower Hamlets mayor next year.

Here’s his statement:

John has a lot of catching up to do, he’s been out of touch with Tower Hamlets politics for some fifteen years and a lot has changed. We’re yet to see if he can adapt to the radically different climate in local government.

Personally, I think he made his contribution in the nineties and I can’t see that he’s got anything new to offer.

I have always believed that the split with the Labour group was about values and principles. There are clear dividing lines between John and the progressive left and we’re hoping that’s what the campaign will focus on.

The people of Tower Hamlets need a radical progressive vision for the future and look forward to Labour abandoning their destructive policy of opposition, at any cost, that has seen them work hand in glove with the local Tories, at the expense of local people; and work with me to fight off Cameron-Osborne’s war on the poor and vulnerable.

So, as I predicted in my last post, he’ll portray Biggs as out of touch and policy ideas may well come into it (although how they influence people’s voting patterns is another question…).

UPDATE

John Biggs has made this reply on Twitter:

@TedJeory Residents don’t want to see politicians trading insults they want to know what we stand for. I Look forward to having that debate.